Wednesday, November 30, 2005

A couple of congressmen have made their views on Iraq known in the past few days and both cases are unusual. First up is Joe Lieberman who, after returning from a trip to Iraq, wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Our Troops Must Stay." The whole thing is a fabulous read, so follow the link and read it now. If nothing else, read this section--and remember Lieberman is a Democrat who was once a vice-presidential candidate.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

This wouldn't be shocking if written by a Republican, of course. They could simply be labeled as a party-man, echoing what the White House wants them to echo. What would be Lieberman's alterative motive, other than an honest assessment?

The second quote comes from a Representative from Georgia, Jack Kingston. Kingston had this to say:

We just left Iraq. As expected, the trip was a great success.

First and foremost: the war that we saw is not the same war that we are reading in the media everyday. In fact, our soldiers are very frustrated that the media is only reporting the bad news instead of highlighting the progress being made.

Our troops are in high spirits and are doing well. Their morale is high, and they are proud of the work that they are doing.

The first thing to note is that the link for this quote goes to Kingston's own blog. It is interesting to see a Congressman author a blog. What I found more interesting is the Kingston is a guest blogger at Redstate, where the full text of his quote can be found. Note that the blog entry doesn't link to the full quote of the Congressman--it is the source of the full quote. If any mainstream media outlet chose the cover the story (unlikely, of course) we would have MSM referencing a blog instead of the other way around. You might find that surprising; I call it foreshadowing.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Imagine my surprise, just two days ago, when I was having lunch with a Canadian friend and he tells me, "The Canadian government is set fall this week." Excuse me? There was a little media attention given to the scandal the ruling Liberal party suffered a few months ago, but they seemed to weather the storm with little damage.

Of course, not 24 hours later, CNN was announcing that scandal had toppled the Canadian government. As with the situation in Germany, I find myself in the interesting position of trying to understand a notable event in a country whose politics I am woefully ignorant.

To understand the details of Canadian politics, a good place to start is Captain's Quarters Blog, where Ed has commented on the fall of the government here and here. In the second post, I learned that Canadian politics are much like U.S. politics in one way--contradicting and biased polls. The commentary suggests that the lead in popularity the Liberals have enjoyed for many years is shrinking; time will tell if this analysis is correct.

One detail that I cannot find in articles about the event is something my friend mentioned to me. Because of the no confidence vote, a general election will be held, likely near the end of January. If the Conservatives win a plurality, they will of course be asked form a new government (partnering with a minority party). But there is a tradition that if a party looses a no confidence vote and then fails to get a majority in the subsequent election, then the party with the second most votes is asked to form the government. Thus, if the Liberal party gets a plurality but not a majority in the January elections, the Conservatives will still be asked to form the government.

I have yet to verify how binding this tradition is. As of yet, I have been unable to find any mention of it in mainstream media news articles or blogs. It would seem an important point, so I would expect to read more about it. In any event, the whole system makes the Electoral College seem simple, at least to this American.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Over at a blog called Sweetness & Light, there is a post about a Cindy Sheehan book signing, held in Crawford, Texas. I think it is safe to say that Ms. Sheehan's 15-minutes of fame are up.

There are more pictures at the original post. There, the author wonders why the AP let such pictures out, expecting them to crop the picture to hide the reality of the situation. Later, this update was posted, showing the picture Reuters used to cover the story:

Saturday, November 26, 2005

I've said it before but it bears saying again: the Democrats obsession with being anti-Bush is going to cost them elections in the future. Bush is no longer going to run for public office. He is President for the next three years, and then his political career is over. Continuing to hammer on Bush is a waste of money and energy. A focus on different ideas and policies would be much more effective in gaining seats in the coming elections.

Case in point--a teacher in Vermont whose choice of words in a vocabulary quiz have caused an uproar.

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.

The superintendent, Wesley Knapp, is acting professionally:

School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

I originally was going to ignore this story, but it is has gotten interesting enough recently to merit a mention. At 11 am on Monday morning of this week, CNN was airing speech by Vice President Cheney live when this image was seen.

This was first reported, I believe, at the Drudge Report. As one might expect, this appears to have been a technical malfunction. (If you look closely under the X, you can see some black text.) A follow-up has been posted by Drudge, with this quote by CNN:

It involved a switcher, something we call a switcher. It's a machine that we use to switch between visual elements.

Now, that glitch resulted in that 'X' that you saw being flashed briefly across the screen as the vice president was speaking.

There would be little more to say, except for additional developments being covered at Daily Pundit. There's a whole timeline of events to read there if you are so interested. The quick summary is that a viewer called into CNN asking for an explanation of the X. The response she received was staggering. The CNN representative claimed that X'ing out the Vice President was defensible and an example of free speech. This representative has since been fired by CNN.

A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her.

I'm of the mind to believe that everything is as it seems; the appearance of the X was the result of a technical glitch and the switchboard operator that claimed otherwise did not speak the truth or speak for the network.

The entire incident does not improve my already weak impression of CNN's professionalism.

Monday, November 21, 2005

I saw this story about Johnny Depp linked from Ann Althouse this weekend. If you will recall, Johnny Depp moved to France because he couldn't stand life in America. He has been quoted as saying this:

France, and the whole of Europe have a great culture and an amazing history. Most important thing though is that people there know how to live! In America they've forgotten all about it. I'm afraid that the American culture is a disaster.

America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive. My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out.

Apparently, he's now considering moving from France. I'm not sure where he'll move next, but I feel genuinely sorry for Mr. Depp. I've sometimes described extreme modern liberalism as naivete. (I've yet to come up with as succinct and hopefully just as unflattering description of extreme modern conservatism.)

Many idealistic people such as Depp are looking for a perfect society, where people treat each other well by choice, where there is no crime, no violence, and where everyone is accepted for who and what they are. Sadly, such a society does not exist. Differences in race, religion, socioeconomic standing, and countless other factors lead to many unpleasant things in society that Mr. Depp wishes weren't true.

I wish him luck in finding his Utopia. The rest of us would be better served trying to make a difference in the real world in which we live.

Friday, November 18, 2005

CNN has an article about October home sales, the effects of higher interest rates, and the possible end of the housing boom. I'm not as interested in the article as I am in this one paragraph (bold emphasis mine):

The housing starts report contains no information on home prices. A separate government report last month showed that the median price for a new home fell 6 percent in September to $215,700. Half the homes sold for more than the median and half for less.

Really? This quote is classic for two reasons. I can't tell if the author, Chris Isidore, is trying to define the term "median" for his readers or he doesn't understand it. Additionally, after pointing out half the homes sold above the median price, he feels the need to tell us how the other half of the homes sold.

Anyway, a little math humor to brighten you day. (For the half of you, at least, whose math skills are above the median.)

I haven't posted much on this subject, but there has been great fear that internet traffic would be regulated in ways that other media are not. I was therefore very happy to see this report at Redstate that details a recent FEC decision which puts many of these fears to rest.

I have not followed the case in detail; if you are interested in the finer points, the Redstate article has a number of links. The quick summary is that an internet web site (Fired Up!) was found to be entitled same press exemption to campaign finance laws as the more traditional media outlets such as print and television.

This is one more example, in my opinion, of blogs chipping away at the old media. What you are seeing is just the beginning.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

One thing that has struck me since I've started blogging is how much energy people on the extremes of the political spectrum have. For example, the media just doesn't push its agenda once and a while. It pushes it every day, in multiple ways. As soon as one biased story looses public appeal, another way to push the agenda is found. And the phenomenon isn't limited to the left. People on the right don't cry out against abortion occasionally; they do so every day, at every opportunity. Their stance seems to grow from performing abortions is immoral, through talking about abortions is wrong, all the way to thinking about abortions must be stopped.

As someone in the middle (right of center, but still way in the middle) of the political spectrum, I find it hard to keep up. How many times can I point out media bias? It isn't going to stop and most people don't seem to care or even much notice. For every logical argument I can put forth, there are a hundred people spewing forth biased arguments to the contrary.

I've thought about this for a while, but decided to write about it today when I noticed this post over at Instapundit. In it, Glenn responds to criticism he has received for (in Glenn's words): "...having the temerity to suggest that it's wrong for the press to peddle falsehoods about the war." While I agree with Glenn that the criticism is ridiculous, what struck me was the nature of Glenn's response. It was two large paragraphs, hastily typed as he was getting on a plane, complete with a "taht" instead of "that" typo. This from a man who can usually get his point across with a well-timed "Heh." I can't help but think that Glenn gets at least a little frustrated being the Libertarian in the middle, as it were.

I have no real solution for myself other than to keep on blogging and see how it goes. I'm sure showing weakness isn't a good tactical move, but I must admit that it does get tiring, day-to-day, keeping up with people with extreme views with a seemingly limitless energy to push them.

Not surprisingly, Kos is mute on the subject. He does suggest Kerry is the wrong choice to debate the President on Iraq. It is rare that I agree with Kos on something. Kos picked this quote:

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

No mention of this story on CNN, MSNBC, or ABS news. Odd isn't it? Every Democratic slam of Bush makes front page news for them. But when the slams are revealed as lies, it's time to talk about Alito and abortion. Props to CBS news which has this editorial linked on their front page. What about FoxNews you ask? Surely they are trumpeting Bush's message, right? After all, they are nothing but cheerleader for the Republican Party. Right? Wrong. Their only mention of Bush's round of comments is an editorial that rips the President for trying to shift the blame to the Democrats. It is under the "Only on Fox" section. Fair and balanced, indeed.

My biggest fear with this counterattack is that it is all based on actual quotes and reminders of what really happened. It doesn't have any catchy rhyming slogans like "Bush Lied, People Died." And if you can't chant it in a protest, can it really be true?

Monday, November 14, 2005

As noted by Michele Malkin, CNN anchor Carol Lin referred to two teenage rioters in Paris as African-American. This would be OK, except that they are French, not American.

LeShawn Barber wishes people would stop calling him African-American (scroll down, it is an update on the linked post). He is proudly American and doesn't appreciate the term.

This all reminded me of a discussion on a college hockey mailing list some years ago. Someone asked how many African-American college hockey players played for Division I programs in the U.S. The immediate answer was four. Then some one pointed out that the correct answer was actually one, as three of the "African-Americans" were actually "African-Canadians".

I'm often asked by friends if I want to "get into politics". It's a subtle suggestion that I should stop writing about it and start getting involved in a more direct way. When I see the behavior of other politicians, however, I can't help but think that these are people that I don't really want to work with on daily basis.

Case in point is Senator Jay Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller was interviewed by Chris Wallace. You can read the exchange at Power Line, and reaction at Captain's Quarters and Just One Minute. I highly suggest you read all the details there, but the quick summary is that Senator Rockefeller seems to have no regard for taking responsibility of his actions.

From Oct 2002:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

and

At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.

These aren't quotes of President Bush, though I imagine if you told 1000 people that they were, 99% of them would agree with you. So what is Senator Rockefeller saying now?

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

This exchange shows why some people are just not cut out to be leaders. He freely admits he had access to mountains of intelligence and, after careful review, came to the same conclusion that President Bush did. When the intelligence turned out to be incorrect, he wishes he could go back and change what he decided. Being a leader is not about agonizing over past decision when you get new information. Being a leader is about acting in the most appropriate manner with the information you have available at the time. Being a leader is having the faith and confidence to make difficult decisions and acting when actions are needed.

I am glad to see this continued strategy of "Bush tricked us!" by the Democrats is being questioned by the media. I'm sure it won't get the attention of a good sex scandal, but it's a start at least.

Friday, November 11, 2005

I've been baffled as to why President Bush hasn't called out the crazy accusations regarding the Iraq war. He's finally done so, in a speech he gave today.

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The response appears to have been positive, even outside the right-wing cheering section. Notably, Glenn an Instapundit reacts, noting he has been calling for this for a long time.

So many scientific and engineering advances have their roots in either military or space programs. I was excited to read that DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is funding research in to solar cell efficiency.

The Darpa program calls upon the consortium to develop and produce 1,000 Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) prototypes that are affordable and that operate at efficiencies of at least 50 percent. Currently, high-end solar cells operate at a peak efficiency of 24.7 percent, and solar cells off the production line operate at 15-20 percent efficiency.

The consortium’s goal is to create solar cells that operate at about 54 percent efficiency in the laboratory and 50 percent in production.

The VHESC would have immediate application in the military, which increasingly relies upon a variety of electronics for individual soldiers and the equipment that supports them. As well, it is expected the solar cells will have a large number of commercial applications.

Of course, if you click the link, the actual headline of the article is, "Two of 'Gang of 14' say Alito filibuster unlikely."

In the actual article we find:

After the group's first meeting on Alito, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colorado, told reporters there was "a sense that we're still together and keeping this a civil and orderly process at this point."

He said the Gang of 14 "is not going to blow up."

and:

"I don't know a single Democrat who is saying that it's time for a filibuster, that we should really consider it," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said after meeting with Alito on Wednesday. "It's way too early."

It doesn't seem there is a break-up to avoid at all. Careful CNN, your agenda is showing.

Well, at least he use to. I found this bit of investigative blog reporting fascinating (hat top Instapundit). Over at the Generation Why blog, Jason has found two quotes by President Carter that are quite revealing. The first is a more recent quote:

"The Bush Administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were manipulated, at least to mislead the American people."

That is what President Carter said yesterday, November 2, 2005. But what did he have to say about Saddam Hussein two and half years ago?

"We want Saddam Hussein to disarm but we want to achieve this through peaceful means. He obviously has the capability and desire to build prohibited weapons and probably has some hidden in his country."

That quote is from President Carter on February 18, 2003. So obviously President Carter has changed his mind. But it is hard to take his new criticism seriously when he agreed with President Bush earlier.

The saddest part of this is the he seems just to be recanting the "Bush Lied, People Died" nonsense. President Carter had always been a man of principle and a man of peace. I emphasized the word "peaceful" in the second quote, above. Even back then, when he agreed that Saddam Hussein had the "capability and desire" to use such weapons, he was urging a peaceful solution. I may not agree with that approach, but I can certainly respect it. It was an approach that was very consistent with how he led his life and I find it genuine.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

When Bush announced his plan for preparing the U.S. for an avian flu pandemic, which called for Congress to approve $7.1B, I expected to hear an outcry. Bush spends money too freely! What about a balanced budget? He's going to have to raise taxes! The war has cost too much!

Well, there's been an outcry and criticism. Only it wasn't what I expected. The problem with the plan, it seems, is that it is too little, too late.

Critics said the U.S. government was slow to act. "It should have happened five years ago," said Dr. Allan Rosenfield, dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York.

Hillary Clinton also has decided that Bush hasn't been spending enough money.

U.S. Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton noted that the United States has struggled to cope with the annual influenza outbreaks. "Since 2000, we have experienced three shortages of seasonal influenza vaccine," she said in a statement.

"While it is welcome news that the administration is focused on vaccine research and stockpiling in the event of a pandemic flu, the question is how will the administration handle distribution and communications with a system that has failed to meet seasonal flu vaccine demands in three out of the last five years?"

I realize that people are genuinely concerned about the avian flu. But one can't complain the government is too big and at the same time complain that not enough is being done.

A few days ago, I was shocked at the Times, where they mangled the quote in a letter of a fallen U.S. soldier, Corporal Starr.

Michelle Malkin continues to follow up on the story and the NY Times refuses to apologize for their behavior. Their response is snide and treats the issue with a "you don't understand" attitude.

It is true that the article did not quote everything that Corporal Starr said in his e-mail, like his reference to Iraqi freedom, any more than it quoted everything said by all the others quoted in the article, who represented all sorts of shades of opinion. But the article was completely fair in its representation of the views of Corporal Starr and his father.

Their attempt at a justification lies, oddly, in this part of the original article:

"Mrs. Jones, 26, said she struggled at first to contain her anger that her husband was sent to Iraq instead of Germany. But she has consoled herself with the conviction that he died for a cause he supported. And she firmly rejects the antiwar protests of Cindy Sheehan, saying they dishonor the fallen. ''I hope she doesn't have my husband's name on a cross,'' Mrs. Jones said. ''My husband, if he had a choice, that's how he would want to die. As a soldier.''

The point is, apparently, that the views of a different family (the Jones family) are pro-war and were represented accurately. Thus, the article was fair because it showed both sides of the issue. Excuse me? What the reporter found were two soldiers, both dead, that both supported the cause for which they died. So he twisted the quote of one of them so that he could present both sides of the issue. This is good journalism?

I stand by what I said in my original post. Please cancel your New York Times subscription. They deserve none of your money or your support.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

There's been a lot of comments leading up to and since the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court, but none so baffling as this gem for Harry Reid:

"I think the American people can see through this so clearly. The president should come forward with some middle-of-the-road person, somebody that is going to be a good Supreme Court justice, not somebody that's going to be writing the law from the bench," Reid told ABC's "This Week."

Does he really mean this? This is the number one conservative requirement for a nominee. It is the basis for their attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. More justices with this philosophy mean a reduced scope for the federal government.

Does Reid really want these things? Does he speak for all Democrats? If so, why do both sides talk and act like they are preparing for war?